UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

TUESDAY 8 MARCH 2011

ZAC GOLDSMITH

BILL ESTERSON, MRS ELEANOR LAING, SARAH NEWTON AND DR SARAH WOLLASTON

DR BRIGID FOWLER AND DR ROBIN JAMES

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 8 March 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr George Mudie

Zac Goldsmith, Bill Esterson, Mrs Eleanor Laing, Sarah Newton, Dr Sarah Wollaston Dr Brigid Fowler and Dr Robin James made representations.

Q1 Chair: Zac, are you here for a new debate or to support a debate?

Zac Goldsmith: I’m here for a new debate.

Q2 Chair: That’s fantastic. Let me briefly run through how we do this. All we want is a brief idea of what you propose for a debate and why it’s important and topical. It would also be useful to know what support you’ve got for the debate-it’s you and whoever else-whether you’ve got cross-party support and whether there are any time limitations for the debate.

Zac Goldsmith: Thank you very much for giving me the time. Broadly speaking, the debate is about CFP-common fisheries policy-reform. I have a draft motion, which five Members of Parliament signed: Dr Alan Whitehead and Joan Walley from the Labour party; Sheryll Murray, who obviously represents a fishing community, and is Conservative; Andrew George, who is the DEFRA spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and Douglas Carswell, also from the Conservative party, who has an interest in the common fisheries policy. With me, it is six, not five MPs.

The issue, about which I’m sure you all know, is the scandal of discards, whereby up to half-and in some cases, more-the fish caught in the North sea are thrown back dead or dying into the water as a result of perverse European Union CFP rules. Why is it relevant now? First, because there has been an overwhelming public reaction following a Channel 4 campaign-three quarters of a million people have signed a petition calling for an end to discards.

Secondly, there is a big appetite in Parliament for resolving the issue. My early-day motion on fish discards has been signed by 223 MPs-very much cross party. I think that works out at more than half those who are eligible to sign an EDM and that it is the third biggest at the moment. Clearly, there is cross-party demand here.

Thirdly, the negotiations are at a crucial stage. The European Commission will put forward formal proposals in June or July-we don’t know when-and the decisions will be made around October.

The debate would be timely and everything points towards giving us an opportunity once and for all to deal with an issue that so far simply hasn’t been tackled. Have I got more time or should I stop?

Chair: That’s fine. I think we’re aware of what the issue is.

Q3 Mr Hollobone: Have you got the motion with you? If so, will you read it out?

Zac Goldsmith: I’ve a very draft motion, which I am happy to read out, subject to the caveat that it has been signed by the MPs that I mentioned, but it hasn’t been tested beyond that. It says:

"This House builds on its and the public’s support for the Fish Fight campaign and calls on the Government to vote in support of any proposed EU regulations to reform the EU common fisheries policy only if they end discards by"-

probably 2015, preferably sooner-

"in relation to all fish and shellfish caught by EU fishers, end overfishing, ensure that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by"-

probably 2015-

"determined in partnership with the fishing industry, and give priority access to vessels using fishing practices that respect the marine environment."

In a nutshell, it means that we would not support reforms to the CFP that do not also include an end to discard.

Q4 Chair: Is your motion basically the EDM that has been tabled?

Zac Goldsmith: Not quite.

Chair: It’s not a problem.

Zac Goldsmith: It’s not quite the same. The final point that we need to look at more carefully is that there’s a big demand from our smaller fishing communities-the under-10 fleet, which is the majority-for total sovereignty over the 12-mile coastal waters around this country. At the moment, we cannot apply British laws to foreign vessels in those waters, and most people accept that that needs to be changed.

Q5 Mr Hollobone: Having a motion’s clearly important to you rather than just debating the subject, so it’s Chamber time you’re after as opposed to Westminster Hall time. Are you thinking of a one-and-a-half-hour debate, a three-hour debate, an all-day debate?

Zac Goldsmith: First, the premise is correct. We had a good debate on 2 December, but there was no motion at the end. You need to have a motion at the end to empower the Government-

Q6 Mr Hollobone: Where was that debate?

Zac Goldsmith: It was in Westminster Hall.

Q7 Mr Hollobone: How long was it?

Zac Goldsmith: I believe it was an hour an a half. I took part in it, so I ought to know, but I think it was an hour and a half. There was lots of demand-more demand than supply in terms of time-but because it was Westminster Hall, fewer people turned up. If there was a motion at the end of the debate, I think there would be a big turnout, lots of issues would be raised-there are lots of issues to raise-but principally, the key thing is that there is a motion at the end so that the Government are sent into the negotiations with a very clear mandate.

Q8 Mr Hollobone: May I press you a bit more about whether you’re thinking of three hours or six hours?

Zac Goldsmith: Three hours would be fantastic-I think that we could cover a lot of ground-but it’s a massive issue, so I would like to be greedy and say that we want as much time as possible. I know from my correspondence with MPs that many who have no connection with rural or coastal constituencies also feel very strongly about this issue, so I’ve no doubt that there would be demand.

Chair: Okay, thank you.

Q9 Mr Bone: That was an excellent presentation, which ticks all the boxes that we look for. However, one of the things that we’re struggling with as a new Committee is that there used to be EU days-indeed, there used to be fixed days each year when you had general debates-but we’re trying to get away from those general debates and instead hold debates on specific motions, and your motion seems ideal. However, we might want to allow a wider debate within the debate. Would that be fine with you?

Zac Goldsmith: I don’t know what the rules are. The motion needs to be specific so that people understand what we’re calling for, but the debates around the CFP are very broad, and they touch on many other issues in relation to sovereignty- for example, who is in a position to make decisions. If I were given an opportunity to make a speech, I would not focus just on the motion, but talk about the much broader issues, for example, what we mean when we talk about fish lobby groups. I think the Government often take the view that the giant, industrial mega-fleets are the voice of fishermen whereas the small fishing communities are not. Those sorts of issues will be raised.

Q10 Chair: Thank you. Is there a deadline for this? Is a report being produced? Is there any time limit for the debate?

Zac Goldsmith: The key next deadline is that, sometime in June or July-we don’t have a specific date-the European Commission will put forward its formal proposals for CFP reform. They will be debated afterwards and the EU will make decisions around October, so ideally we’d want to influence the Commission’s report. If the Commission knows that there is very strong feeling from Parliament in this country, specifically on discards, but also on the broader issues, I hope that that would influence the report that is submitted sometime in June or July.

Q11 John Hemming: Would you mind having a debate structured so that the motion’s the same, but it could include the CAP as well as the CFP?

Chair: You’ve made a bid for a specific debate, Zac.

John Hemming: I think there was a "no" there.

Zac Goldsmith: I’d love to debate the CAP, but if you have a motion on the CFP, it’s likely that the debate would have to involve issues that are relevant to the CFP. I think it could get a bit messy otherwise. I wouldn’t object, but I think that the debate should be focused.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed.

Zac Goldsmith: Shall I leave a one-page summary?

Q12 Chair: That would be great, thank you.

Is there anybody else who has not been to us before?

Dr Robin James: I am the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee and I’m here with my colleague from the Committee about Mr Ottaway’s submission.

Chair: I am happy to hear everybody together. The issue is that we’ve got a day of debate on Thursday.

Dr Robin James: We’re here simply on behalf of Richard Ottaway to give background information on the timing of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s proposed motion and wish for a debate on it, which I think the Committee considered earlier.

Q13 Chair: Brilliant, we’ll leave that for a second. Let’s have all four of you who want to discuss Thursday’s sitting at the front. Who wants to start?

Mrs Laing: May I ask a question, Madam Chairman? I don’t know anything about the coastguard debate-clearly it’s a very good subject for a debate. It’s important and has considerable support throughout Parliament, but that’s not a matter for me. May I ask the Committee why, when a decision was made that on Thursday 10 March there should be a debate first on UN Women, based on an EDM in my name that now has 112 signatures, suddenly, one week ago, it was decided to insert the debate on the future of the coastguard service-an important debate that might well run for several hours-with the result that the debate on UN Women, which has been widely discussed and advertised and had been intended to coincide with the week in which we mark international women’s day, which is today, could go down to half an hour or one hour, which would not be suitable? May I ask that question?

Chair: Yes, of course.

Q14 Mr Hollobone: Shall I give the answer? The premise in your question is not right. The Committee felt last week that both the women’s day debate and the coastguard debate were important and needed to be held. The Committee has been given Thursday afternoon, and it was always the case that it wanted to have two debates that afternoon. The big difference between the women’s day debate and the coastguard debate is that the latter has a general motion that will not be voted on, whereas the former has not only a substantive motion but an amendment. If there were a vote on the amendment and the substantive motion, half an hour of parliamentary time would be lost in Divisions. If the women’s day debate were held second, that extra half hour would be taken in addition to Back-Bench time, not out of the other debate.

That was the substantive debate that we had in the Committee last time, so actually, the Committee was trying to protect the time for both debates, and I object to a Member of Parliament coming to this Committee to say that it is trying to restrict one debate to half an hour or an hour, because that simply is not the case.

Mrs Laing: I go further than that, Madam Chairman. That was a very interesting statement of the procedures from Mr Hollobone, of which I and I am sure the rest of the Committee are well aware. We understand the time restraints extremely well. I go further than what he suggests I am suggesting: there is a concerted effort, about which I have heard not just in this Committee but in the corridors of the Palace of Westminster, to prevent from taking place the debate on UN Women to mark international women’s day. I have been told by other colleagues that it is a bit of a joke to have a debate on women, and that it might be rather fun to come into the Chamber on Thursday and wind up the women while they do their silly women’s debate. This is not, Madam Chairman, a silly women’s debate. This matter has gone beyond a joke.

Q15 Chair: Okay. We could go back and forth on this issue for a long time. The points have been made, and you have responded to them. Could we also hear from those representing the debate on coastguards?

Bill Esterson: I will be helpful. I’ve put my name against the women’s day debate, as well, and I completely agree that that should take priority, especially with it being the anniversary. Sarah and I have talked about this and we are more than happy to move to the Westminster Hall slot on 24 March to make sure that the women’s day debate gets the full time that it deserves.

Sarah Newton: We really want to make sure that the coastguard debate gets the full time that it deserves, and with the best will in the world, however disciplined we are, there is a real risk on Thursday that neither debate will enable all the Members who need to express their views on these very important subjects to do so. There is an alternative opportunity for us in Westminster Hall for a full three hours during which we do not have to worry about the House dividing, which would give us more time. The 24th is a good day for us because it is the last day of the consultation period, so it is quite a symbolic day, and we are very hopeful that the coastguards themselves will come up with an alternative strategy that the Government will welcome. So, the 24th suits our purposes from both points of view and enables both issues to be fully debated.

Q16 Chair: Let me get this clear: are you making a specific request to have your debate in Westminster Hall on the 24th?

Sarah Newton: It was my understanding from our conversations with you that that would be a possibility.

Q17 Chair: We do have a slot on 24 March in Westminster Hall and once we go into private session, we would take all that into consideration.

Dr Wollaston: That would be conditional-not that we wish to set conditions-on the Committee’s clarifying that the time for that debate would not then be split with other issues. The reason for wanting to be helpful in recognising the importance of the UN Women debate is that we see this as an opportunity to give both debates the full time they deserve. We do not want to find ourselves with half the amount of time a few weeks down the line.

Chair: Okay. I’ll bring in Peter, but after that we will move on as I think we have a clear picture.

Q18 Mr Bone: Thank you, Chairman. I have broken off from the UN meeting at Lancaster House, where I was celebrating international women’s day and particularly the fight against human trafficking. I think the comments about this Committee from the hon. Lady who represents Epping Forest were wrong. The decision was made last week purely to give maximum time to those debates.

On the new idea that has been put forward, we cannot say, of course, that if we remove the coastguard debate from the Wednesday, you will get another day; you may just lose the debate. We are not in a position to say, because we will have to look again at the timing and may put on a different half-day debate on the Thursday. So until the Committee meets in private, we won’t be able to reach a decision on that.

John Hemming: From a procedural point of view, even though it is a general debate, the closure motion would still apply, so you could still close the debate after a certain number of hours. If you are saying, "Take it off"-

Mr Bone: No-the problem we were faced with was the loss of half an hour’s time.

John Hemming: I know that, but you can end the general debate with a closure motion if needs be.

Dr Wollaston: May I just clarify something? My understanding was that the debate on coastguards could carry on without a limit.

John Hemming: But you could have a closure motion.

Mr Bone: No, it was always intended to split the debates in two: there was to be an equal amount of time for coastguards and for international women’s day. There was absolutely no chance of the first debate-[Interruption.] You weren’t there last week, Chairman. The timings on this were specifically discussed, and we came up with a formula, as has happened in the past, because we certainly have no intention of allowing one debate to dominate. But if, for instance, only four people put in for the coastguards debate, we would shorten the time. Clearly, if a lot more put in for the second debate, again, we would shorten the first one. This is one of the problems with Thursdays in the Chamber. We cannot say that a debate will run until a particular time, because there might be urgent questions or statements, so we have to look at the timing on the day. That is why we offered a debate in Westminster Hall, where we can give a fixed time.

Chair: Okay. Let me bring in Jane Ellison.

Q19 Jane Ellison: I just want briefly to say thank you to those who have bid for the coastguards debate for being so flexible in coming forward with your constructive suggestion; and to remind the Committee that, as I recall, your original bid was for three hours in Westminster Hall.

Sarah Newton: Could I just make one point in the light of what’s been said? We have publicised that, and there is huge expectation that, this debate will be held in Westminster, so not having a debate on this issue is not an option for us. It did appear on the Order Paper, and there is a huge amount of concern around the country about it.

Q20 Mr Bone: So you don’t want to withdraw it from Thursday?

Sarah Newton: We don’t want to withdraw the debate. We need to have the debate in Parliament. Whether it’s the Chamber or Westminster Hall is of secondary importance, but what is not an option for us is the message going out that the coastguards issue does not matter.

Q21 Chair: But what I heard Peter say was that, if you withdraw your debate from Thursday, that does not give you a guarantee that you will ever have your debate again. I think we’ve all understood that you are willing to move your debate to 24 March, to Westminster Hall, on the condition that the debate definitely happens, and that if that doesn’t happen, you won’t withdraw your debate from Thursday.

Sarah Newton: Good, yes.

Chair: I think we’ve heard that absolutely loud and clear, so thank you very much.

Q22 Mr Mudie: I think you’ve come up with a very good suggestion, and that we should respond in kind. But let’s consider what happens if a majority in the Committee said no. If those pressing for the women’s debate were to give up a quarter of an hour and you did so as well, that would cover the difficulty of a vote in the middle of the afternoon. It would shorten your debate by 15 minutes, but they would be giving up the same amount of time. I would hold that as a reserve position, if you agree, so that if, as was mentioned, there is a suggestion later that you’ve given up your bid and you’re not getting a Westminster Hall debate, we know there is another suggestion kicking about. However, I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Mrs Laing: May I make a point about timings, Madam Chairman? Mr Mudie is absolutely correct and I am not arguing over a quarter of an hour here or there; nor am I arguing for one second that the coastguards debate is not important. It is most unfortunate that these two matters have come together, which two weeks ago they hadn’t. There was no problem or conflict whatsoever then. However, the debate on coastguards is unlikely to require a vote, unless of course there is a closure motion, but the debate on UN Women will require a vote because there is a significant amendment with 31 signatures to it.

We are talking about a Thursday afternoon in Parliament, and having a vote in the middle of the afternoon, rather than after 6 o’clock, is much better timing for most Members of Parliament, who have constituency duties. If it can be arranged that a vote takes place in the early afternoon, rather than after 6 o’clock, I am quite certain that the vast majority of Back Benchers would say to the Committee that that’s what we would prefer.

Chair: Which is what we’ve hitherto done: the Committee has normally scheduled the votable debate first, and then the general debate.

Q23 John Hemming: Would those pressing for the coastguards debate have any objection if the order were reversed in the Chamber, as long as you have a defined time?

Dr Wollaston: To be honest, you have to bear it in mind that many Members who represent constituencies with coastguards live in the most remote points, geographically, from the House. That’s perhaps also a consideration for the Committee, and I do think it unfortunate for everybody to lose time, because many Members will want to speak in the coastguards debate and, no doubt, in the UN Women’s debate.

Q24 John Hemming: So you would prefer a fixed time, whereby you get, say, 40% or 50% of the available time?

Dr Wollaston: I’m speaking only for myself.

Sarah Newton: It’s one of the rare, UK-wide policies, so there are strong feelings, as you know from the Westminster Hall debate and the representations that were made. All nine parties support this-all the parties in Northern Ireland and all the parties in Scotland. It’s unusual in that regard.

Q25 Chair: I’m going to draw this to a close because I think we’ve batted through everything.

I just want to hear briefly from the Foreign Affairs Committee, which quite a long time ago made a bid for a short debate with a votable motion. To judge by my conversations with Richard Ottaway, it has a time sensitivity to it, and when I spoke to him today it emerged that 4 April was the absolute deadline. He said that he’s desperate to get some time on Thursday.

Dr Robin James: Yes, and as I think he tried to make clear in his original submission, he doesn’t think that an enormous amount of time is needed. I think he thought that an hour and a half would be ample. May I ask my colleague Brigid, who is our European specialist, to come in on the exact sensitivity of the timing?

Dr Brigid Fowler: The timing issue is simply that the motion and the FAC report on this issue are directed at a meeting of the EU Speakers’ Conference, which does indeed take place on 4 and 5 April. However, the proposed motion is part of a lobbying or negotiation process going on in Brussels, so it would be helpful if the House endorsed it earlier, rather than later. It is also part of the plan that the House of Lords pass an exactly parallel motion, but they don’t wish to act until the Commons has done so, so it’s a case of leaving enough time for that to happen.

Q26 Chair: As I said, my conversations with Richard Ottaway were completely informal. He was talking about 90 minutes, which is not an insignificant amount of time, given that we only ever have slots of six hours-

Dr Robin James: It’s not insignificant, but I imagine the Committee is aware of the fact that Mr Robert Walter will want to attend the debate and take a rather different view from the Committee’s. This is a motion on which the House may well divide, and an amendment may well be tabled, so I think Mr Ottaway wants to reflect the fact that there will be some opposition in the House already; its extent remains to be seen.

Chair: Okay. I think we’re clear on that. Thank you very much, everybody, for attending.